Gorman v Scofield

The case of Gorman v Scofield involved a dispute over the apportionment of liability for a motor vehicle accident. The respondent, Scofield, was found to be primarily at fault due to his excessive speed. The trial judge had initially apportioned liability equally between the parties, a decision which Gorman appealed on the grounds that the trial judge's apportionment was manifestly inadequate. The respondent, in turn, cross-appealed the primary judge's findings of fact.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's equal apportionment of liability was reasonably open, given the primary cause of the accident was the respondent's excessive speed. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a way that was inconsistent with the established principles of judicial discretion in apportioning liability. The principles required consideration of the extent to which each party's conduct contributed to the accident and whether the apportionment reflected the relative fault of each party.

The court found that the trial judge's equal apportionment of liability was not reasonably open, given the primary cause of the accident was the respondent's excessive speed. The principles of judicial discretion in apportioning liability demanded a more reflective apportionment that aligned with the relative fault of each party. The court re-determined the apportionment, reducing the respondent's damages by 65% for contributory negligence. This outcome was upheld by all judges, resulting in the dismissal of the respondent's cross-appeal.

The final orders included the allowance of the appellant's appeal, the re-determination of the apportionment of liability with a 65% reduction of the respondent's damages, and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-appeal. This decision was made with the concurrence of Buss JA, Steytler P, and Newnes AJA.